Readied actions interrupting charges

[Alex319]

Consider the following scenario:

A monster M is 6 squares away from a target T. M attempts to charge T, but as a readied action, after M has moved three squares, a fighter F charges M and marks him. (M has not used any actions prior to this this turn.)

Which of the following, if any, is true?

1. M is required to keep charging T, taking an OA from F in the process.

(1a. What about if the result of the readied action was to make getting to F impossible? Suppose that instead of F readying, T readied an action to move out of charge range. Or F was a wizard, and cast a wall of ice to block the charge path.)

2. M can stop moving, and make a charge attack against F instead.

3. M can stop moving, and use a non-charge melee attack power against F.

4. M can stop moving, but if he does so, he can take no further actions this round.

 

[BASHMAN]

This is interesting- since you can ready a charge as an interrupt action. I don't know if it says anywhere *what* happens when a charge is interrupted. Presuming that the "straight line" that you have to run in has now been blocked, you cannot complete the charge on the original target- but since this other character just ran right up to you while you were screaming and sprinting with a spear held out, it would make perfect sense if you could skewer him as a new target.

 

[kerbarian]

As far as I can tell, this isn't directly addressed in the rules. In general, I'd go with the idea that whenever the situation changes, characters and monsters can make new decisions based on that, as long as it doesn't retroactively change their previous decisions. Deciding to stop an action is okay, but deciding to back up and do something else instead isn't.

If your original action becomes impossible to complete (like in your example 1a), it gets fuzzier, but I'd allow whatever portion of the action is still possible to be continued.

By those guidelines, the answer would be 4. M can either continue charging T (taking an OA from F) or stop and end its action.

For the examples in 1a:

If T moves out of charge range, M can use the rest of its movement attempting to "move directly to the nearest square from which you can attack the enemy" but will fall short and not get to make an attack at the end of its charge.

If T casts a Wall of Ice, M can again use the rest of its movement continuing the charge but will have to stop when (or before) it runs into the wall.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

This stuff has been debated on the WotC boards endlessly. The last thread on the subject exceeded 500 posts before the ORCs finally closed it.

There are a whole variety of answers that people can give and reasons for them. Lets review some facts and then you may come up with an informed decision on how to handle it.

A) Movement happens square by square and no rule requires you, in general, to declare or plan out movement, you just move each square, see what happens (OA etc) and then move another square, etc.

B) Charge never really SAYS you have to declare a target. Charge is a type of action, not (as a whole) a use of an attack power, so it doesn't technically HAVE a target. There are rules for what constitutes a valid charge and presumably you have to know where the charge is going to end up in order to interpret those rules. Still, nothing says you can't charge to a certain point and then choose to attack either of two targets which would be possible to validly have charged based on the moves you made.

Now, the fighter triggering and charging the monster is a perfectly possible scenario. I don't think the monster is REQUIRED to continue charging. It may be able to declare that the charge movement is over and take the attack against the fighter (if it moved 2 squares already, etc). Its a pretty gray area. Any of 2,3, and 4 could be argued as being correct.

 

[KarinsDad]

I think the rules are actually fairly clear on this.

A Charge is a standard action. The moment the monster moves 1 square, he has started his standard action Charge.

A Charge is also an attack. The DM doesn't say "Your target has done an immediate interrupt to teleport away, so you can change targets" on any other attack. The same applies to Charge.

When you Charge, your target is already selected. Your movement is already selected. You cannot change because it is a single atomic action. It can be interrupted and stopped via a Readied action, but the charging character itself cannot stop it.

This is no different than any other standard action that does not have rules text for decision making within the action.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think the rules are actually fairly clear on this.

A Charge is a standard action. The moment the monster moves 1 square, he has started his standard action Charge.

A Charge is also an attack. The DM doesn't say "Your target has done an immediate interrupt to teleport away, so you can change targets" on any other attack. The same applies to Charge.

When you Charge, your target is already selected. Your movement is already selected. You cannot change because it is a single atomic action. It can be interrupted and stopped via a Readied action, but the charging character itself cannot stop it.

This is no different than any other standard action that does not have rules text for decision making within the action.

Well, I know where you're coming from, but that runs you into problems too. Like what happens if the target moves away? And actions themselves really don't HAVE targets. Charge never says "pick a target and charge them", it just says you do this that and the other. I agree it pretty much assumes the existence of at least a target square you are charging to, but its not all that clear about it. In fact the language seems to try its hardest to avoid the word "target". Then it says "move [to] the square from which you can attack the enemy", not "attack the target", like there is no target.

Also there is a certain symmetry involved. You can stop moving if you use a move action. Why suddenly is it different if its part of a standard action? And what does "you have to continue moving" really mean? What if I say no? Its like some kind of forced move or something, which doesn't seem right.

 

[KarinsDad]

Well, I know where you're coming from, but that runs you into problems too. Like what happens if the target moves away?

It doesn't matter. The attack was selected, the circumstances changed. No different than the teleporting target example.

And actions themselves really don't HAVE targets.

No, but melee basic attacks do. Charge is a melee basic attack. It just happens to be a melee basic attack that includes movement.

I'm not seeing any real problems here like you mention.

Charge never says "pick a target and charge them", it just says you do this that and the other. I agree it pretty much assumes the existence of at least a target square you are charging to, but its not all that clear about it. In fact the language seems to try its hardest to avoid the word "target". Then it says "move [to] the square from which you can attack the enemy", not "attack the target", like there is no target.

Also there is a certain symmetry involved. You can stop moving if you use a move action. Why suddenly is it different if its part of a standard action? And what does "you have to continue moving" really mean? What if I say no? Its like some kind of forced move or something, which doesn't seem right.

The position that a target is selected is inferred from the move and attack rules and the movement restriction rules:

Move your speed as part of the charge and make a melee basic attack or a bull rush at the end of your move.

...

You must move at least 2 squares from your starting position, and you must move directly to the nearest square from which you can attack the enemy. You can’t charge if the nearest square is occupied.

If one does not pick a target, how can the attacker make a melee basic attack? If one does not pick a target, how can the attacker move directly to the nearest square? If one does not pick a target, how can one know if the nearest square is occupied?

I understand the fact that the rules are not explicitly spelled out with the terminology target, but one cannot even choose a direction to move without choosing a target. The moment the charging creature starts moving, it has already chosen a target (or target square in the case of Invisibility).

It cannot change its move because it cannot change the standard action it has already started doing.

Do you allow any other standard action to be modified once it is already started if the standard action itself does not state that it can be modified?

 

[sfedi]

Some Standard actions CAN be modified as they are executed.

Like Passing Attack.

Anyway, I tend to favor your interpretation KarinsDad.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

It doesn't matter. The attack was selected, the circumstances changed. No different than the teleporting target example.



No, but melee basic attacks do. Charge is a melee basic attack. It just happens to be a melee basic attack that includes movement.

I'm not seeing any real problems here like you mention.



The position that a target is selected is inferred from the move and attack rules and the movement restriction rules:



If one does not pick a target, how can the attacker make a melee basic attack? If one does not pick a target, how can the attacker move directly to the nearest square? If one does not pick a target, how can one know if the nearest square is occupied?

I understand the fact that the rules are not explicitly spelled out with the terminology target, but one cannot even choose a direction to move without choosing a target. The moment the charging creature starts moving, it has already chosen a target (or target square in the case of Invisibility).

It cannot change its move because it cannot change the standard action it has already started doing.

Do you allow any other standard action to be modified once it is already started if the standard action itself does not state that it can be modified?

Well, I don't have any major issues with how you handle it, but none of this is actually supported by the rules. Charge movement is movement, just like any other movement. Exactly what is or is not required is never made clear. Or more precisely no rule says you DO have to move in a manor consistent with the charge requirements or that you DO have execute the attack portion of the charge, or that you DO have to pick a target. Nothing for instance says that if your "target" say shifts a square (maybe as a readied action or using something like Kobold's shifty power) that you can't simply continue your charge until it fulfills the charge requirements WRT to the new "target" location, or simply decide that you will execute the charge attack against someone else as long as your charge movement met the requirements WRT to that creature.

Mainly nothing in charge suggests that there really is a specific fixed target for your charge. Contrary to what you say Actions don't have targets. For example there is no rules support for saying that you have to have LoE to something you charge, which would be a requirement for any kind of attack. ALL attacks are powers, not actions and nowhere do the rules say that the requirements for targeting, which all apply specifically to powers, apply to charges. I'm not saying they shouldn't apply but by RAW they don't.

In any case all this means it is impossible to definitively answer all of the OP's questions. RAW simply doesn't answer these sorts of questions. Charging is an infamous 4e rules black hole. Like I said before, the WotC Rules Q&A board is literally FILLED with 1000's of posts trying to answer the same questions (or related ones like "Can I charge around a corner").

 

[KarinsDad]

Well, I don't have any major issues with how you handle it, but none of this is actually supported by the rules. Charge movement is movement, just like any other movement. Exactly what is or is not required is never made clear. Or more precisely no rule says you DO have to move in a manor consistent with the charge requirements or that you DO have execute the attack portion of the charge, or that you DO have to pick a target. Nothing for instance says that if your "target" say shifts a square (maybe as a readied action or using something like Kobold's shifty power) that you can't simply continue your charge until it fulfills the charge requirements WRT to the new "target" location, or simply decide that you will execute the charge attack against someone else as long as your charge movement met the requirements WRT to that creature.

It doesn't say you can change your standard action to do this, so you cannot.

That standard action was already selected. Including the "move to closest square" portion of it.

By allowing additional move, the charging creature is no longer moving to that explicit closest square anymore. He's moving to a different square.

Mainly nothing in charge suggests that there really is a specific fixed target for your charge. Contrary to what you say Actions don't have targets. For example there is no rules support for saying that you have to have LoE to something you charge, which would be a requirement for any kind of attack. ALL attacks are powers, not actions and nowhere do the rules say that the requirements for targeting, which all apply specifically to powers, apply to charges. I'm not saying they shouldn't apply but by RAW they don't.

They do for melee basic attacks and charge is move plus melee basic attack with the restriction that the move must be in a straight line to the closest square to the enemy. That's pretty clear cut.

No exceptions. No deviations. Just the action as declared by the attacker because of the rules and restrictions of charging.

In any case all this means it is impossible to definitively answer all of the OP's questions. RAW simply doesn't answer these sorts of questions. Charging is an infamous 4e rules black hole. Like I said before, the WotC Rules Q&A board is literally FILLED with 1000's of posts trying to answer the same questions (or related ones like "Can I charge around a corner").

RAW does answer these questions. It's there in the move to closest square rule. It's silly semantics to think that one does not have to select a target in order to move in a straight line to the closest square of the target. It's silly semantics to think that one can not move to the closest square and still perform the charge. That's breaking the closest square rule.

For a different interpretation to occur, one has to change the action that was declared, hence, changing the conditions that allow for a charge in the first place. It's a catch 22 with other interpretations.

I understand your POV. The word target is not in that rules text. But, one cannot deviate from the other rules in that rules text.